A modest proposal of potential help to us and citizens re near future

It occurs to me that:

1. Some of the best minds; most informed researchers; most alert observers; most analytical and thoughtful minds . . . etc. etc.

are among us hereon.

2. Many of us are fairly extensively informed re the NWO oligarchy and even Biblical END TIMES' basic script etc. etc. etc.

3. It is often challenging to sort out the signal from the noise.

4. Who better to do that than the diversity of informed perspectives hereon?

5. My hypothesis is this: WE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO COLLECT DATA, ANALYZE DATA AND INTERPRET DATA

RE the looming major manipulations of the planet by the oligarchy in ways and degrees and moderate thoroughness that many well funded groups might not be able to match. I think our brainstorming might well match that of the best. [alternately stated: RE the looming END TIMES events per the Biblical script--I don't see a great deal of difference between the two].

6. I'm SUGGESTING that we use this thread to offer our observations, data, analysis, interpretation for:

( A ) Significant to major incremental escalations of geopolitical forces toward:

.......( 1 ) WW3
.......( 2 ) Other significant depopulation events

.......( 3 ) Gun confiscation events
.......( 4 ) Other liberty, freedom diminishing events

.......( 5 ) Media, information exchange restrictions, diminishments
.......( 6 ) Possibly planned, executed bio-engineered plague events or steps toward such events

.......( 7 ) Possibly planned, executed exotic tech 'engineered' or enhanced "natural" disasters
.......( 8 ) Possibly staged significant "false flags" toward any of the above

.......( 9 ) Geopolitical intrigues that may be disinformation, misinformation, major manipulation, deception etc. overtly in the world media, on the world stage.

.......( 10 ) Whistle-blower claims, events, publishing of worthy note re the above
.......( 11 ) UFO related incremental disclosure events, articles, speeches

.......( 12 ) Exotic tech of obvious use to enhance tyranny, restrict freedoms, consolidate tyrannical power in the hands of the 1%
.......( 13 ) Significant disclosures of corruption, graft, theft, major financial manipulations etc.

.......( 14 ) Significant movement on the part of the top levels of the 1% that may appear to be their retreating to their bunkers.

= = = =

My assumptions are that a diligent application of ourselves toward such goals could serve as a very viable canary in the coal mine function.

I think it would at least be an interesting exercise.

I do think that such a thread--IF--engaged in by many and energetically--could rapidly get very complex and messy. It might be wise to have someone assigned to glean from it the major bits and put them on a distilled summary thread that was kept less ungainly and cleaner--maybe primarily for reading vs blathering on.

= = = =

Soooooooooo . . . what do y'all think of such a proposal?

At least it's not in the manner of Johnathan Swift's A MORE MODEST PROPOSAL! LOL.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Seems that basically what you are suggesting is to take everything that already is discussed on ATS in all of the forums in all the years and distill it down into this thread here?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Not really.

I was more talking about going forward.

And including a brief note or summary or mention of NEWS items or personally discovered events, factoids etc. contributive toward what many of us believe to be the script and goals of the oligarchy re the not distant future global government of tyranny, one world religion of tyranny.

That is . . . trying to collect in one thread items--PUZZLE PIECES--that would likely begin to show major trends toward their goals . . . changes in trends, more rapid evolution of a given trend etc.

I think I might say something like picturing this thread as a vast table on which we all laid out puzzle pieces we'd come across . . . collecting like pieces in their clusters of similarity . . . etc. etc. and eventually, maybe making connections between clusters of puzzle pieces.

Is that any clearer?

What suggestions might there be for formatting such contributions? Columns of a table? I haven't come up with much that seems very practical. I don't think we could use more than 3-4 columns very functionally. Don't know that that would be sufficient. I suppose it might be if the thread were navigable like an XCell spreadsheet but I don't know how that would work technically.

It would be most functional if we could have boxes, or columns or something according to whatever categories we settled on . . . and new factoids could be easily added. Perhaps there could be a post that had the basic formatting for such that could be copied and pasted and added to simply enough.

The HEADLINES or short summaries in the table would have a link to a more amplified post, perhaps.

I hope this is not too grandiose for enough people to catch the vision of it. I think it COULD be very powerfully helpful to all of us.

a reply to: BO XIAN
Predicting the near future, not by any special psychic revelations but rather by assembling bits and pieces of information to draw a reasonable course of action through the coming events. ? Like a think tank.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: BO XIAN
Predicting the near future, not by any special psychic revelations but rather by assembling bits and pieces of information to draw a reasonable course of action through the coming events. ? Like a think tank.

EXACTLY!

And maybe not per se being so greatly predictive in terms of dramatic specifics--though that would be great, too.

But being alert to trends, shifts, major escalations etc.


For example . . . Let's say there are 2-5 scattered seemingly disconnected stories . . . e.g.

--the screechy one only gets softball questions from the media

--no Press conferences in many months

--Trump is not included in Seri searches on Apple products

--Fire marshall cuts off attendees without reason at Trump event

etc. etc. NOTE: I'm NOT clustering the above 4 factoids together per se . . . they each could be in their own category. Maybe some such categories would be clusterable together in a larger category later on, maybe not.

What if there are 15-20 verifiable puzzle pieces of the same sort [NOT saying there are currently--just a hypothetical for illustration]. THAT's a different picture, no?

I'm not sure a forum like ATS is up to it. "It" (ATS) as an entity is composed of many individuals who basically disagree about everything. There is no consensus on "End Times," for example. There is no consensus on what even constitutes a conspiracy. The site, as a whole, is too wide-ranging for that, and its members are not disciplined enough to serve as a base of operations for such an effort. We are not working together toward a common purpose. We can share some ideas and trade some thoughts, but the basic idea here is, "I'm right and you're an idiot." You can't trust half the "facts" that are presented here as anywhere near factually truthful. The Mandela Effect? Please! Chemtrails?????? That's how this place rolls. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone here is especially well "plugged in" to secrets they can share under the table, Tom DeLonge notwithstanding. You can't even distinguish between educated guesses and pure fantasy presented as "evidence."

That's not to say something cannot be done, or that you cannot draw from this crowd of people who, whatever else they are, are willing to stretch the limits. There is such a thing as the Delphi Method, which, I think, attempts to do what you are suggesting. The basic idea as I understand it is to cast a net by asking experts to predict what is going to happen with "X" and compiling the results, then sending the results back out to the original experts and asking them if they want to revise their opinions in light of the opinions of others. The idea is to narrow down the results and gradually, through successive iterations of the same technique, arrive at a consensus that is then billed as the likely future.

I've been subjected to similar kinds of techniques in a business environment where a facilitator is attempting to narrow down concerns of the players (usually employees) to come to some sort of conclusion that can be distilled into a business plan for the organization. (Note: They use lots of Post-It notes on pieces of butcher paper for this exercise.) I once won a dollar for telling the facilitator to make a triangle on the board and label the three points Good, Fast, and Cheap, with the caption of, "Pick any two."

It may be that you could concoct a "Project Delphi" here by labeling each new thread as such in soliciting opinions, then summarize the results statistically. For example, you could create a thread whose title is: [Project Delphi] Subject: What do you think of the idea of an "End Times" as depicted by Christians? You tabulate the results, and report back: "X% of people think it is nonsense. X% take it seriously. X% have a different opinion." Next subject: [Project Delphi] Are UFOs the result of the ETH (Extraterrestrial) or the IDH (Interdimensional) or (Umm! Satan!)? Report back. 50% 40% 10% or whatever.

You could go through as many questions as you want and deal with the answers as you see fit. You'd get a feel for the consensus (or not) of ATS members, and, insofar as they are "correct," an idea of the future.

a reply to: BO XIAN

I think they take the good, reverse it, then lord over the chaotic reverse world.

Faith to "facts."
Community to diversity.
Individual rights to global rights.
Marriage to "partnerships."
Religious devout to religious extremists.
Liberty to security.
Charity to greed.

Right? That's the pattern?

Chaos or artificial chaos, it doesn't matter to them, just as long as they can reverse it and lord over it.

You trying to get into specifics, though, I don't know if that is good, like asking for prophecy might be bad.

I think your points are quite excellent.

One slight quibble . . .

I think that a NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS would be up to the task--of various persuasions. Trolls keenly uninvited. And by those I do NOT mean folks who disagree 180 degrees with me. I mean instead, those poor souls who are sooooooo bone marrow contrarian that they CANNOT and WILL NOT have a civil, non-insulting dialogue with much of anyone. I doubt they can even manage it with themselves. LOL.

Anyway--I realize that the Delphi Technique has been criticized as a NWO Tavistock technique to squash traditional values etc. etc. and erect NWO values in their places. And I have no doubt that it has been and will be used for such.

As I've noted hereon before, Several of my professors were TRAINERS of the Chief Tavestock Trainers. So, I'm keenly familiar with Tavistock--i.e. as it was 40 years ago.

Another process that is also quite productive is

A NOMINAL GROUP PROCESS. I'd have to refresh my memory but for some reason, I preferred it over Delphi. I think, IIRC, individuals are handed say 5 cards. Initially, they write down whatever priority they feel fits the goal of the group meeting.

I don't recall if they rank 2-3 such items, or not.

The facilitator takes up all the cards or calls out the items and lists them on the famous butcher or newsprint paper. Then the facilitator notes that the items have been surrendered to the group. One need not feel a slavish loyalty to even one's own items. But look at all the items on the list and choose the most important/top 5, say. Rank order those.

Then a new mathematical ranking is derived from that. It's usually quite powerful and groups typically feel very congruently identified as individuals with the result.

I think your thread ideas is likely a good one. Maybe the Mods/Admin could chime in on what they think would be the most functional way to manage such a thing.

I'm still more than a little skeptical that we'd get enough folks interested enough to contribute meaningfully enough to bother. I hope I'm wrong because I believe it could be a very powerful thing and potentially even life-saving.

Thanks much for your meaty and very apt contribution.

BTW, good one, the triangle.

originally posted by: schuyler
I'm not sure a forum like ATS is up to it. "It" (ATS) as an entity is composed of many individuals who basically disagree about everything. There is no consensus on "End Times," for example. There is no consensus on what even constitutes a conspiracy. The site, as a whole, is too wide-ranging for that, and its members are not disciplined enough to serve as a base of operations for such an effort. We are not working together toward a common purpose. We can share some ideas and trade some thoughts, but the basic idea here is, "I'm right and you're an idiot." You can't trust half the "facts" that are presented here as anywhere near factually truthful. The Mandela Effect? Please! Chemtrails?????? That's how this place rolls. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone here is especially well "plugged in" to secrets they can share under the table, Tom DeLonge notwithstanding. You can't even distinguish between educated guesses and pure fantasy presented as "evidence."

That's not to say something cannot be done, or that you cannot draw from this crowd of people who, whatever else they are, are willing to stretch the limits. There is such a thing as the Delphi Method, which, I think, attempts to do what you are suggesting. The basic idea as I understand it is to cast a net by asking experts to predict what is going to happen with "X" and compiling the results, then sending the results back out to the original experts and asking them if they want to revise their opinions in light of the opinions of others. The idea is to narrow down the results and gradually, through successive iterations of the same technique, arrive at a consensus that is then billed as the likely future.

I've been subjected to similar kinds of techniques in a business environment where a facilitator is attempting to narrow down concerns of the players (usually employees) to come to some sort of conclusion that can be distilled into a business plan for the organization. (Note: They use lots of Post-It notes on pieces of butcher paper for this exercise.) I once won a dollar for telling the facilitator to make a triangle on the board and label the three points Good, Fast, and Cheap, with the caption of, "Pick any two."

It may be that you could concoct a "Project Delphi" here by labeling each new thread as such in soliciting opinions, then summarize the results statistically. For example, you could create a thread whose title is: [Project Delphi] Subject: What do you think of the idea of an "End Times" as depicted by Christians? You tabulate the results, and report back: "X% of people think it is nonsense. X% take it seriously. X% have a different opinion." Next subject: [Project Delphi] Are UFOs the result of the ETH (Extraterrestrial) or the IDH (Interdimensional) or (Umm! Satan!)? Report back. 50% 40% 10% or whatever.

You could go through as many questions as you want and deal with the answers as you see fit. You'd get a feel for the consensus (or not) of ATS members, and, insofar as they are "correct," an idea of the future.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Great points. Could you please elaborate about prophecy being potentially bad?

a reply to: BO XIAN

I just assumed it was logical: if you ask people to prophesy, and they're not prophets, then you get false prophets / false prophecy?

Edit:

I mean, if there is a prophet, let him speak for sure, but idk about playing guessing games with Biblical prophecy - that's all I'm saying.

Deuteronomy 18:20-22

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Oh, I certainly agree about that.

However, I guess I put puzzle collection, data collection, analysis and interpretation a

VERY DIFFERENT category from spiritual prophecy--true/Holy Spirit or false/other spirit(s).

To me, it's simply an exercise in group logic. . . . as logical as any group can be facilitated to be. LOL.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
It occurs to me that:

1. Some of the best minds; most informed researchers; most alert observers; most analytical and thoughtful minds . . . etc. etc.

are among us hereon.

Except for those that push Sorcha Faal hoaxes, they have shown they are not capable of critical thinking!

What if "great minds" disagree with your observations about the direction the world is headed?

You seem to want data to correlate to your own beliefs rather than to an abstract data analysis.

...and... not to be horrid, here, but I have seen you accept blogs and other nonverified sources as being good information. In my field, we have some pretty rigid standards for verification but I'm not sure that you would believe some of my sources (as you folks can tell, I'm a rather dry academic, scientific sort) just as I really cannot accept some of yours.

a reply to: Byrd

I'm used to folks pigeon-holing me. I never fit anyone's tidy little box, whether they realize it, or not.

I'd love your variety of data collection, analysis and inference.

It has a LOT going for it. It's just not as flawless as SOME presume. I don't consider you in that category.

I just would not want the process to limit things to such a strategy as to deal only with that TYPE of data collection etc. etc.

A ranking system could be devised, if your sort of folks would want it . . . say ranking things on presumed "objectivity" 1-10 for each factoid/data point/bit.

a reply to: Byrd

Pondering . . .

say rankings 1-10 on the following . . .

--OBJECTIVITY
--QUALITY OF SOURCE i.e. expert, position, reputation, track record etc.
--LOGICAL, reasonable, does it fit with what's already known--how well
--ANY PROOF available in standard objective terms?

Any other such categories?

a reply to: Byrd

What if great minds disagreed?

I envision a collection of possible/probable threads, schemas, interpretations, threads of possible/probable outcomes, explanations running along parallel for a good while . . . some might be put on the shelf waiting for new data . . . some might be the leading one, two or 3 themes, explanations for a while and shift positions from time to time.

That's fine with me.